TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ] and also CIT Vs. M/s.Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd cited [2013 (7) TMI 622 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], also the judgement Shri Thomas George Muhoot [2015 (7) TMI 810 - KERALA HIGH COURT] Further regarding the alternate submission of the Authorized Representative to consider the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, if any to be considered as part of the business profit in view of the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GEM Plus Jewellery India Ltd. [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], wherein it was held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.10A with reference to addition of disallowance of PF/ESIC payments as the plain consequence of the disallowance and add back made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). Again, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Special Bench of ITAT (Vizag Bench), in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transporters vs. Addl. CIT (136 ITD 23)(Vizag SB), wherein it was held that the provisions of the section 40(a)(ia) are applicable only to the expenses that are payable and outstanding at the end of the close of the financial year relevant to the assessment year and not to the amount already paid. The same view was taken by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd in ITA No.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.10A with reference to addition of disallowance of PF/ESIC payments as the plain consequence of the disallowance and add back made by the A.O is an increase in the business profits of the assessee. In our opinion, this plea of the assessee s counsel to be upheld in view of the judgement. We ordered accordingly. ITA No.2093/Mds./2015 5. The assessee has raised the grounds as follows:- 1. For that that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.116/Mds./2011 1685/Mds./2010 dated 27.11.2012. In that appeal before the CIT(A), assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to built-up area of the project Riverview Country . However, as seen from the order of the CIT(A), there is no specific findings on the issue raised by the assessee. As such, we are not in a position to appreciate the order of the CIT(A) which is very cryptic one. Accordingly, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of the CIT(A) to give finding with reference to the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal before the CIT(A). This appeal of the assessee is remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo consideration. 7. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
